Seriously buddy, do you believe everything you read on the internet? That website is garbage and they often just put unsubstantiated rumors out there.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming
- Thread starter GabrieleR
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mac mini new mac mini
- Sort by reaction score
Seriously buddy, do you believe everything you read on the internet? That website is garbage and they often just put unsubstantiated rumors out there.
That's why I post current rumor...maybe it's true, maybe not.
With rumors like those, we're in for another 3,500 posts before they update our mini.
20% or so more performance for 10 x the power requirements is a false economy regardless of cost is the point I was making. Imagine the difference in KW/Hr over a 3 year period (a reasonable time to have a system for before a significantly faster model is available). The Mac Mini will have racked up £100s in electric bills, the PC £1000s for a token 20% or so more CPU power. We're not talking a 450W 8 core Xeon system with a 25000 geekbench vs an 85 watt mobile quad i7 with a 11000 geekbench. We're comparing 850W desktop quad i7 with a 14000 geekbench. 10 x the power requirements for a token CPU power advantage.
Last edited:
Barkmonster, I just thought I should jump in and say that just because a computer has a 850w power supply doesn't mean that it consumes 850w of power. It's more of a potential of power it "could" consume, but even so the internal components on most of these "PC Geek" computers could never draw that much. That said, yes desktop components consume more than the laptop components in a Mac Mini but it's not the slam dunk you think it is.
What's the PSU on a classic Mac Pro? 980w. Does it use 980w all the time? No.
For example this article is comparing the power consumption of various machines.
What's the PSU on a classic Mac Pro? 980w. Does it use 980w all the time? No.
For example this article is comparing the power consumption of various machines.
I realise that it's a "potential to" draw that much power but the same can be said for the Mac Mini too. It's literally the maximum it ever will draw in power, not a like a 100W non-energy saving lightbulb that uses 100W when on and 0 when off because there's no powersaving features like a Mac or PC.
That was the trashiest article ever. Included such gems as 'no doubt it will run on the latest Mavericks' and be 'as secure as possible'. Well Yosemite will be out long before then and unless 'as secure as possible' means hermetically sealed so that not even iFixit can tear it down, I have no idea what he's talking about.
He clearly has no idea what he's talking about.
He does encourage everyone to 'sound off in the comments section below', we could all go over there for a few days taking this thread with us and 'sound off'; sort of like a vacation.
You are new here and after awhile you will learn not to put faith into sites like the one you posted. Most of us know better....
Exactly, but as I was saying - the components in those machines rarely if ever come anywhere near close to the 850w and such won't consume 10x the power as you keep saying. People building PC's regularly over-estimate their power demands and could be satisfied with an efficient smaller capacity power supply. Just because you have it doesn't mean the components will use it. It's like the Mac Pro with a 980w power supply, but when rendering it's only using 400w odd.
More power than a Mac Mini? Yes. 10x? That's a bit of a stretch. I'm yet to see a desktop that's not running multiple GPU's flat out that comes anywhere near 850w constant load, and even then that's not going to be 24/7 unless you're folding.
I really don't care what the maximum power consumption of my mac mini's are either, most computers are idle most of the time.
That's what Tim likes to hear. It's a great machine though.
Yep, love Tim's rMBP (and I'm an old windows/linux guy) but I still want a mini for a dedicated music/media server so I will still wait . . . and wait. I hope that my zero percent Apple loan for the rMBP is paid off before the new mini finally appears!
All a current Mac mini needs is an Iris Pro or dGPU and it would be great. I imagine that graphics are the main reason people still want a headless iMac. If the Mac mini offered a GT 750M, most would opt for that instead of an iMac.
Graphics is what is really holding back the Mac mini.
Oh, BTW my sources confirm January 6th release of the new Mac mini. It will feature haswell i7, 8GB RAM, and 256 SSD. When do I get paid to be journalist?
Graphics is what is really holding back the Mac mini.
Oh, BTW my sources confirm January 6th release of the new Mac mini. It will feature haswell i7, 8GB RAM, and 256 SSD. When do I get paid to be journalist?
I think I might have said that 2 or 3 times as well. Graphics are what's wrong with the current Mini. If Apple came out with a Mini with an Iris Pro, even if the rest of the machine remained the same, I would buy it. But with that HD4000...no way!
Last edited:
Tuesday comes on Wednesday this week, due to the U.S. Federal holiday on Monday.
----------
I feel the same way. I'd probably even buy one with non-pro Iris 5100.
Of course, they can't put in Iris/IrisPro without moving from Ivy Bridge to Haswell, so the rest of the machine couldn't remain exactly "the same." But the rest (form factor, ram slots, storage, ports) could remain the same.
I think it's safe to say that the Mini will not show up with Haswell or it would have showed up as a Mid 2014 release.
It will probably show up when Broadwell is available in a new form factor.
What makes it twice as frustrating is that Apple can put a 780M in a thinner iMac, not one, but TWO Hi-end workstation class GPUs into a chasis smaller than my mini trash can at my desk at work, yet they couldn't have at least put in a 650M in a Mac mini. I'm sure most wouldn't mind a mildly taller mini if it had nice graphics. With the innovation Apple has done, they have no excuse not at least put an Iris Pro in the new redesigned mini.
I agree. I'd buy one if they stick a discrete card in there; but not if it's Iris.
A lot of the games on Steam require discrete graphics.
Sadly, I don't think Apple will do it; unless there's profit in it, so crew us, the customer, right? Right.
I read an article in The Guardian that Cresc said it would " be affordable for Apple still to make its goods in America, it would remain hugely profitable" but they won't do that.
So I don't think there stick a graphics card in a mini....but time will tell.
Not really.
I run it with a 24" 1920x1200, my parents even bought a crappy Full-HD display that only does 1920x1080.
I will buy a better display at some point but I really doubt that people buy 3000 USD reference displays for their 700 USD MacMinis.
Neither will I. It can drive a 30" display at 2560x1600 - that's enough for probably more than 95% of the Mac-buying population. And the remaining 5% probably wouldn't buy a MacMini anyway, even if it did 4K@60Hz.
And don't mention games.
Most people that like to play computer-games have learned to play them elsewhere (consoles, a gaming PC).
Mine runs both a 1280x1024 and a 1920x1080 display fine. I use it for audio and some light graphics work just fine and as far as I can tell, even the 9400M in a 2009 model can run a 2560x1440 display and a 1920x1200 display simultaneously which is more screen area than my current config with 2 of the 1280x1024 displays.
No one here is talking about display performance. I would be willing to bet that large portion of Mac users buy the iMac for the graphics. A hi-end Mac mini can compete processor and SSD wise with an iMac, so clearly a major draw of the iMac is the graphics. I'm sure allot of people would prefer to not have buy an entirely new display with every upgrade just to get nice graphics in a Mac.
Anyone that wants a Mac that doesn't have $3000 to spend on a Mac Pro and wants good graphics has to get an iMac.
This argument is over used and played out. If this was the answer to everything, why bother putting in a nice GPU in a Mac at all? Also, last time I checked, gaming isn't what the only thing you used a dGPU for.